Member Info for Phimx

Observer: From the report
*** The payback period for the Charger 3.0 (with no tariffs) based on 7,000 hours of use per annum (only likely to be achieved in a commercial setting) is estimated by the company to be 4.9 years – also assuming a purchase price of £10,000, installation cost of £1,500, maintenance ****

Assuming the 28p saving calculated previously, operating for 7000 hours per year (19 hours per day !!) then the owner makes saving of 1960 quid. The cost to buy and install = 11, 500 . So time to pay back costs = 11,500/1960 = 5.9 years !!!!

I'm not convinced a 15 kW output is really a commercial sized output. Seems about 2 kW is required to heat medium sized living room, so about 7/8 living rooms - basically a large house and not even enough electric output to run a power shower - for the 3.2 KW version and only just for the 6.4 kW version and that's as long as every electrical item in the house is switched off

In addition, how many place would run the boiler 19 hours per day.

Boiler prices
Vailliant 28 kW price 1122
Heatline 24 kW price 466
Worcester 28 kW price 778

Observer: Another thing that doesn't seem to get a mention is the start up energy costs. By that I mean the energy that goes into getting the Charger up to temperature in a stop start environment e.g. domestic

Observer: I did get stuck on that point I'll read the rest of the report later.

Observer: To further complicate this 'simple' calculation, it is only true when the Charger is producing both outputs at the same time since modulation occurs (we are agreed it does occur) then the figures will change with the modulation. Reports I have read suggest that in real world applications the savings are not as great as might be suggested by the manufactures. I'll willingly admit there generally savings to be had. But what price the Charger ? and if it came with a storage system , what additional price then

Observer: ***Assuming a gas price of 2.25p/kWh and electricity price of 12p/kWh that means 36p (3kW x 12p) of electricity has been self-generated and 37p (15kW x 2.25p/kWh x1/92%) of heat, totaling 73p, on a total input bill of 45p (20kW x 2.25p), assuming the electricity and heat are consumed on site, so providing a saving of 73p – 45p = 28p. This compares to no savings at all from a nonmCHP boiler, which only generates heat ***

Assuming the electricity and heat are CONSUMED on site ... that's the bit I have trouble with ! How many people in the south recently have had their CH on ? Come to think of it how many people in the north have CH in the summer and without some electrical storage where does the electric come from when the boiler isn't on ? The calculation of the savings will be difficult. The cost of the Charger another assumption !

Observer: I had only copied the article dated 25 November 2008 and here is the relevant portion. I shall try and trace and provide a link to the original article.

**************//****************
Disenco intends to have HomePowerPlant in production by the third quarter of 2009 and hopes to claim a significant market share of the million boilers replaced in the UK every year. One factor that could tempt potential customers is a bill going through parliament to fix a tariff for electricity sold back to the grid.
‘Currently there is no fixed tariff that the utility companies have to pay for electricity, so each pays what they consider a fair price,’ said Dale. ‘To give you an idea of a fixed tariff, in Germany it’s six times what you pay for it yourself. You can make a lot of money.’ After the trials, Disenco has UK manufacturing partners ready to roll. Autocraft Industries, which is based in Grantham and has three plants in north America and one in the Czech republic, will build the engines. Traditional boiler company, Worcestershire-based Malvern Boilers, will deal with the heating side.
‘Autocraft will make and assemble the engines, and transport them to Malvern Boilers, which will put the boiler, the carcass and the electronics together, carry out a full function test then dispatch to the end user,’ said Dale. ‘They both helped us with the field trial build, so their learning curve is satisfied and they are ready to go straight into mass production.’
Disenco also worked with a number of academic partners on the project, including the Welding Institute and the Casting Institute. The company also carried out some work with Sheffield University, which supported it with funding and helped develop some of the electronics in the early stages of the project.
Once the first HomePowerPlant is in production, Disenco plans to develop a wall-mounted version, then decide whether to develop bigger or smaller versions — down to 1kW or up to 6kW — for different-sized properties. With some further work on the Stirling engine, it could also work as an air conditioning unit. ‘I don’t think we’ll manage to get the whole market share of the million replacement boilers a year, but I’ll settle for 10 per cent,’ said Dale.

Observer: I shall hunt them out but it may take me a while

Observer: Have you read this before ?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/216/216we88.htm

Observer: Comprehension !

... simultaneously produces 15 kW and 6.4 kW or ....produces simultaneously 15 kW and 6.4 kW ???

English - the work of the devil

Observer: Some words by Disenco mentioned they would or could or had in their power the ability to develop their engine to give a 6 kW and a smaller 1 kW versions. This suggest they had foreknowledge of their ability to change the system to produce these values, rather than start from scratch and develop a new rated device. That's why I tend toward the " is it a CH boiler or electric generator" pick whichever you want theory. You can have the electric generator at 6.4 kW or you can have the boiler at 15 kW with a bit of electric. Remember also it has always been touted as a boiler producing lots of thermal to heat you house and produce a bit of electric on the side from the waste. Change the emphasis and murky the marketing and sales pitch and before you know it you have a device that produces simultaneously 15 kWt and 6.4 kWe - BUT not really as we know !

Comprehension - always tricky. Does it mean, we have had first had a go at the 3D printing malarkey by trying it out on a small version pf the engine casting. In due course we'll have a go at the full size version. Alternatively, read it as we are looking to make the engine smaller ? But, you cant just make the casing smaller without shrinking down what's inside it, that is then a whole redesign surely. What effect does that have on performance - a 1 or 2 kW version maybe.

Just thought of another interpretation, how about a smaller version of the casting itself the resulting cast is the same size engine casing. Only the casting is smaller, I guess it would save a bit of money somewhere.

Oh and burning more gas is bit like cheating isn't it. We have squeezed more out but forgot to mention we used more gas doing it.

I don't know what the energy rates are at the moment but if you are using it to create electricity at 35 % eff then say at 4p for gas it's costing nearly 12p for your electric not a huge saving on the grid cost - I think. My concern is without storage then the economics of it all are difficult to fathom for the domestic use since the ratios of heat to gas would change during a use cycle. Again no real detail on that aspect. If your using it to provide constant heat, a nursing as they have suggested then since boiler is only 75% eff it doesn't compare with more efficient systems. So I take their claims of paying for itself in 3 or 4 years with a pinch of salt

Observer: The platelet patent (if actually Inspirits) was applied for in 2001. The jump to 6.4 kW was recent so the platelet is not the answer. Of course they could have been misusing it, then Eureka - we had half the pipes blocked - unlikely - very. I think the clever guys were the Norwegians and they have left - presumably ?

As you say a simple solution is the answer. Minor tweeks to the burner could have given 35 % efficiency which is excellent and also plausible for a Stirling. So, assuming 18 kW of available gas to the burner and going at full pelt then with 6.4 kW electric out that gives 11.6 kWt that at 35.5 % Eff. Now simply divert the hot/warm water from the cool end into the boiler to give maximum thermal output of the burner to give 15 kWt out. Now you have cooled the burner but also you have 3 kW spare heat going into the Sterling but probably at a different efficiency but at 30 % Eff you now get 1 KWe out.

Of course the input gas may be modulated to give less heat and lower outputs of both thermal and electric, to give the 5 kWt of the specifications.

I don't know what the modulation factors were during the Disenco era but simply changing them via a 3 way valve and redistributing the water seems entirely possible. Effectively you are changing from a heat led system to an electric led system by changing your emphasis.

You haven't really changed anything except how you've used the system hence Eureka - no patent possible nor required.
I don't now if the patent details any cooling system for the heat exchanger, I haven't read through it in any detail. An overall heat exchanger external to the burner could be a separate device and not patentable.

Observer: A good bit of research and if correct would explain the claims of John Gunn back in 2016. Presenting the salient facts in a timeline is simple but nice and effective. Of course John Gunn is making a rod for his one back by not releasing information, the improvement from 3.2 kW to 6.4 kW if indeed an improvement to the Stirling efficiency is momentous and praiseworthy and worth more words. Therefore, I very much doubt such a huge improvement has been made by a simple eureka tweak, many millions and many brains have been spent on Stirling research including NASA. I will agree with you that it's probably a system tweak - trading thermal for electric rather than a fundamental Stirling engine improvement. An improvement of that magnitude would necessitate a patent - if feasible. I came across a statement the other day that declares the Disenco AKA Charger is modulated i.e. the heat and electric proportions may be varied. I'm sure that would have to be carried out in the burner/hot section externally. If all the 20 kW was applied to the burner and 6.4 kW was produced that would imply an efficiency of about 35 % which is more than reasonable. Note I've assumed 2 kW losses hence only 18 kW is input. Probably a simple 3 way valve would be used to divert the output heated water to the burner. The construction photos hints at that kind of technology. The real work brain seems to have been carried out by the 5 Norwegians that came across to Disenco and Inspirit have struggled with the easier task of commercialisation.
It's also just struck me that there is no control display panel, this has been mentioned a few times in RNS. It could be an external box on a wall but I would be expecting an LCD/Oled display on the front of the device. Has any one seen this device ?

It's a pleasure to be discussing rather than fending of insults.

Observer: There appears to be no applications from Inspirit Energy nor more recent from Somemore Ltd. That could mean little has fundamentally changed since the Disenco device was built and the last 10 - 12 years have simply been tweaking the design for commercialisation - to be fair that was their stated aim I believe. Obviously no great Eureka patent to double the output. I take from this, and I appreciate it is tenuous, and along with the other signs e.g. senior staff leaving etc. etc. that there has been insufficient drive in the company to force the project forward. The moment seems to have passed for them

Observer: Search using Disenco as the assignee for more results

Observer: Thanks, that's productive information. It comes up with the names of the 5 guys that came across to work for Disenco. Of what use that is I'm not sure, but never throw information away

Per D. Sollie, Sheffield (GB);
Lars Kjosbakken, Sheffield (GB);
Sven Erik Fossum, Sheffield (GB);
Eldar Onsoyen, Sheffield (GB);
Sverre Johansen, Sheffield (GB)

Observer: The patent applicant for the platelet heat exchanger is Ocean Power Corporation, what is the link up with them and Disenco/Inspirit

Observer: your use of the term feedback is interesting. The outputs of the system are electricity and hot water. I can't foresee how the hot gas can be used twice. The gas burns produces heat and that disappears into the hot end chamber. Hot to cold transfer. The heat eventually converted to the outputs. There will be some exhaust products and in a condensing boiler hey are used to heat the return water. Are you suggesting the hot water acts on the Helium ?

One author I read suggests the thermal engine is one of the most complex areas of thermodynamics and I don't have the wherewithal to disagree.

I very much doubt John Gunn has the answers

Observers: it is an interesting idea but the input to the system is gas and the thermal output is the from the cold end I.e. Water that is being used to cool the cold end. That water comes out warmer than it went in, so now we have a flow of hot water to heat the house, a lot cooler than the gas burning at the hot end. Where would you feed that hot/ warm water to ? Not heating the gas, although it needs looking into, but burning gas is a chemical reaction with air. Possibly heating the heater but as we've seen from the patent it's a complex piece of work adding water pipes to the mix would be perhaps a step too far. The only other option is reintroducing the hot water back into the cold end but then you are throwing away the efficiency that made the Stirling engine attractive. On the other hand you could trade efficiency for some extra electric Under certain conditions, particularly to make your specs look good, which is actually what you've written.

From Wiki:
The term of a patent is the maximum time during which it can be maintained in force. It is usually expressed in a number of years either starting from the filing date of the patent application or from the date of grant of the patent. In most patent laws, annuities or maintenance fees have to be regularly paid in order to keep the patent in force. Thus, a patent may lapse before its term if a renewal fee is not paid in due time.
-----------//------------

Would be interesting to note if the patent is still active, is that information available?

Observer: I wrote the following on the 14 March 2019
----------------//----------------/
: Inspirit have a license, from Somemore Ltd, to develop and commercialise the device Somemore bought from the failed Disenco. Now exactly what commercialise means I don't know. At the very least I would expect it to be turned into a viable product for sale to the market place/public....
--------------//--------------

I think John Gunn owns the rights to the device but there is no solid information. The Somemore Ltd. is wholly owned by him and the details of the commercialisation deal are unknown.